• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More Green New Deal: Let’s replace air travel with high-speed rail

pilot16 said:
All those options still use some sort of fossil fuels. Sugar is picked via machines which run on fossil fuels. The process for transforming the cane into usable quantities also requires fossil fuels for heating and breaking it down. Same thing with hemp and beets which is heavily mechanized. Then of course the transporting of those products all over for usage in electricity. There is no such thing as no fossil fuels these days. Even an electric battery requires tons of fossil fuels to mine it and then ship it halfway around the world for building. We may not like it but its the world we live in. Sure we can improve these things over time but to say zero is a bit of a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

So, google is just to much for ya huh?

You can generate heat without fossil fuels, you can actually grow more sugar beats and harvest more sugar beats in a hydroponic setup that requires no fossil fuels. Hemp can actually replace most oil based products.

You can't say we shouldn't convert our means of production to green energy because our means of production uses fossil fuels...

All those things you say, it takes fossil fuels to do that. We want to change that, we can change that, and it's going to be better when we do. That's the ****ing point. Dear ****ing god.

Research before you come up in here spouting what we can't do. G O O G L E

Respond or don't, I don't care, I'm not teaching a class for people to lazy to find this stuff out on their own.

debate doesn't mean teach people, you are expected to have at least a working knowledge of what your debating against. Despite what alot of the Trump supporters will say as they demand for you to explain the most basic concepts, or prove something thats generally well known by 5th graders.
 
The text cited in that bull**** hotair crap post is this

overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and

(iii) high-speed rail;
Click to expand...

The article author actually tried to claim that passage said it would eliminate air travel. it doesn't say that, anywhere. doesn't even mention it. The author lied and its present right in front of their face, and yet the right wingers still believe that line, even though they could read the actual text and see.

So as usual, pathetic, dumb, deplorable right wingers have to make up fake positions nobody takes since they can't actually refute positions liberals really take
 
Sampson Simpson said:
There is nothing crazy about high speed rails, its used on Europe and Asia very frequently. We could have built a country wide high speed rail system for a fraction of the money we pissed away in iraq killing and destroying. The tax revenue that was given to billionaires could have paid for it. Universal Health Care is successful in every industrialized country but the USS. Green energy is proving to provide energy at lower costs and without need for fossil fuels with the improvements in solar and other green technologies. Entire industries are being created in green energy, led not by the US as with most technological advances in the past, but Europe and China, because of the idiocy of conservatives buying the propaganda from oil and gas that don't want to get rid of their stranglehold on energy. they even want to destroy national parks and federal forest to profite even more.

Every argument she makes is supported by facts, expert opinions, rationale. Unlike the BS conservatives do, just call something crazy and stupid, or make some incorrect statement of fact, and that is their entire argument. Do you conservative ever get tired of embarrassing yourselves with your dumb posts?

here will come yet another dumb one line deflection that won't address anything I said, or back up their claim. That's par for the course from conservatives, they have no facts, they have no arguments. Just childish **** like calling people crazy
Click to expand...

You conveniently leave out the parts that make "The New Green Deal" laughable.

I don't think any reasonable person would deny that clean, renewable energy is something that we should be pursuing. What is not reasonable, though, is USING that goal as a justification for the pursuit of some pie in the sky, socialist utopian wet dream. This is exactly what "The New Green Deal" is. A socialist utopian wet dream.

What people like you and AOC fail to understand is that ideas like clean renewable energy are ideas that the majority of this country would actually get behind. If you'd leave it as a stand alone, singular objective, we might actually make some real progress but when you present it as only PART of this socialist utopian wish list you make yourselves look like raving lunatics.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You conveniently leave out the parts that make "The New Green Deal" laughable.

I don't think any reasonable person would deny that clean, renewable energy is something that we should be pursuing. What is not reasonable, though, is USING that goal as a justification for the pursuit of some pie in the sky, socialist utopian wet dream. This is exactly what "The New Green Deal" is. A socialist utopian wet dream.

What people like you and AOC fail to understand is that ideas like clean renewable energy are ideas that the majority of this country would actually get behind. If you'd leave it as a stand alone, singular objective, we might actually make some real progress but when you present it as only PART of this socialist utopian wish list you make yourselves look like raving lunatics.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and the adversarial approach to fossil fuels renders all the rest suspect. Fossil fuels aren't disappearing in 12 years or 50 years, probably much, much longer.
 
apdst said:
It doesn't say "where practical" here:
Click to expand...

I slightly misremembered the phrase, it was "feasible", not "practical":

overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and
(iii) high-speed rail;
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read the document. It would help you tremendously, and you would look a lot less silly.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You conveniently leave out the parts that make "The New Green Deal" laughable.

I don't think any reasonable person would deny that clean, renewable energy is something that we should be pursuing. What is not reasonable, though, is USING that goal as a justification for the pursuit of some pie in the sky, socialist utopian wet dream. This is exactly what "The New Green Deal" is. A socialist utopian wet dream.

What people like you and AOC fail to understand is that ideas like clean renewable energy are ideas that the majority of this country would actually get behind. If you'd leave it as a stand alone, singular objective, we might actually make some real progress but when you present it as only PART of this socialist utopian wish list you make yourselves look like raving lunatics.
Click to expand...

And as usual, you make no argument. You throw out the same claim of why its stupid, even claim "you leave out the parts that show its stupid" yet you can't even point out what those parts are. Then you just go on rant about socialism that has nothing to do with here Green Energy proposal.

Again, are you seriously that stupid that you don't know what an argument is and can't back it up? I backed up everything I said with facts that support it. All you do is say "you left out parts" and repeat it is stupid, then argue things that aren't even there.

Typical conservatives, making up positions nobody made to argue against and ignoring the actual argument


Fletch said:
The issue with the Green New Deal isnt that its stupid, which it is, or that its impractical, which it is, but that is totalitarian. It should be resisted on that grounds and that grounds alone. The government of a free people has no business enacting anything in that moronic document.
Click to expand...

So moronic you can't even back up your statements with any facts, logic or reasoning. The conservative way of arguing, all you have to do is make a statement, don't need to back it up at all.

Shows who really is moronic
 
Sampson Simpson said:
And as usual, you make no argument. You throw out the same claim of why its stupid, even claim "you leave out the parts that show its stupid" yet you can't even point out what those parts are. Then you just go on rant about socialism that has nothing to do with here Green Energy proposal.

Again, are you seriously that stupid that you don't know what an argument is and can't back it up? I backed up everything I said with facts that support it. All you do is say "you left out parts" and repeat it is stupid, then argue things that aren't even there.

Typical conservatives, making up positions nobody made to argue against and ignoring the actual argument




So moronic you can't even back up your statements with any facts, logic or reasoning. The conservative way of arguing, all you have to do is make a statement, don't need to back it up at all.

Shows who really is moronic
Click to expand...

What parts of government-run healthcare, ‘family sustainable’ wages, paid leave, and ‘affordable’ housing are necessary for achieving clean renewable energy?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
What parts of government-run healthcare, ‘family sustainable’ wages, paid leave, and ‘affordable’ housing are necessary for achieving clean renewable energy?
Click to expand...

Why don't you actually read it and find out. That way maybe you will be informed and can actually put forth an intelligent argument, as opposed to asking dumb deflecting questions like this

I know, conservatives don't read, its just better to make up arguments or parrot what Fox news tells them to.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Why don't you actually read it and find out. That way maybe you will be informed and can actually put forth an intelligent argument, as opposed to asking dumb deflecting questions like this

I know, conservatives don't read, its just better to make up arguments or parrot what Fox news tells them to.
Click to expand...

The only thing dumb and deflecting about it is your response.

Again, what does government-run healthcare, ‘family sustainable’ wages, paid leave, and ‘affordable’ housing have to do with clean renewable energy? If you could answer that without using the smarmy, spoiled snowflake routine, that would be great.:)
 
ThoughtEx. said:
You can generate heat without fossil fuels, you can actually grow more sugar beats and harvest more sugar beats in a hydroponic setup that requires no fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Sure, you can do that on a small scale. But what about the millions of acres of farmland it takes to grow the wheat, corn, soybeans, etc. that it takes to feed this nation, not to mention what we export to the rest of the world? You're not doing that with battery power, at least not with some major unforeseen breakthrough in technology.

The energy required to drag a plow through the ground is orders of magnitude above what it takes to push a Tesla down the highway. Current battery capacity wouldn't last any time at all -- I'd guess minutes before needing a recharge. Certainly not anywhere long enough to be practical.

Sorry, but fossil fuels will be around for many years to come.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
 
Redress said:
I slightly misremembered the phrase, it was "feasible", not "practical":



Maybe you should read the document. It would help you tremendously, and you would look a lot less silly.
Click to expand...

You said "where practical". You don't know whatie to tell next. :lamo

The bill specifically states that the goal is a 100% transition to green energy.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
And as usual, you make no argument. You throw out the same claim of why its stupid, even claim "you leave out the parts that show its stupid" yet you can't even point out what those parts are. Then you just go on rant about socialism that has nothing to do with here Green Energy proposal.

Again, are you seriously that stupid that you don't know what an argument is and can't back it up? I backed up everything I said with facts that support it. All you do is say "you left out parts" and repeat it is stupid, then argue things that aren't even there.

Typical conservatives, making up positions nobody made to argue against and ignoring the actual argument




So moronic you can't even back up your statements with any facts, logic or reasoning. The conservative way of arguing, all you have to do is make a statement, don't need to back it up at all.

Shows who really is moronic
Click to expand...

Retrofitting every single building in the entire country? Its obviously Alexandria Ocasio Cortez who is moronic. That alone will cost the entire US GDP, even stretched out over ten years its around $2trillion US. Its absurd to expect that spending and more of the same absurdity on top of it.

Beefing up the grid and making transportation strides towards electric? Sure but let market forces handle it. We already heavily incentivize electric cars.
 
jeffchap said:
Sure, you can do that on a small scale. But what about the millions of acres of farmland it takes to grow the wheat, corn, soybeans, etc. that it takes to feed this nation, not to mention what we export to the rest of the world? You're not doing that with battery power, at least not with some major unforeseen breakthrough in technology.

The energy required to drag a plow through the ground is orders of magnitude above what it takes to push a Tesla down the highway. Current battery capacity wouldn't last any time at all -- I'd guess minutes before needing a recharge. Certainly not anywhere long enough to be practical.

Sorry, but fossil fuels will be around for many years to come.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Not even a token attempt to look this up for yourself huh?

Why Hemp Biodiesel?

Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel that runs in any conventional, unmodified diesel engine.

It can be stored anywhere that petroleum diesel fuel is stored.

Biodiesel is safe to handle and transport because it is as biodegradable as sugar, 10 times less toxic than table salt, and has a high flashpoint of about 300 F compared to petroleum diesel fuel, which has a flash point of 125 F.

Biodiesel can be made from domestically produced, renewable oilseed crops such as hemp.

Biodiesel is a proven fuel with over 30 million successful US road miles, and over 20 years of use in Europe.

When burned in a diesel engine, biodiesel replaces the exhaust odor of petroleum diesel with the pleasant smell of hemp, popcorn or french fries.

Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel in the US to complete EPA Tier I Health Effects Testing under section 211(b) of the Clean Air Act, which provide the most thorough inventory of environmental and human health effects attributes that current technology will allow.

Biodiesel is 11% oxygen by weight and contains no sulfur.

The use of biodiesel can extend the life of diesel engines because it is more lubricating than petroleum diesel fuel, while fuel consumption, auto ignition, power output, and engine torque are relatively unaffected by biodiesel.

The Congressional Budget Office, Department of Defense, US Department of Agriculture, and others have determined that biodiesel is the low cost alternative fuel option for fleets to meet requirements of the Energy Policy Act.
Click to expand...

hemp fuel | hemp biodiesel | hemp ethanol- Hemp

I'm really ****ing tired of providing basic knowledge to people that have access to google...

At this point, you people are literally arguing against market forces. When all we want to do is speed up what the markets are already doing. To hasten it so it's less painful. But, hey you keep the Middle East in business as long as you can...
 
jeffchap said:
Sure, you can do that on a small scale. But what about the millions of acres of farmland it takes to grow the wheat, corn, soybeans, etc. that it takes to feed this nation, not to mention what we export to the rest of the world? You're not doing that with battery power, at least not with some major unforeseen breakthrough in technology.

The energy required to drag a plow through the ground is orders of magnitude above what it takes to push a Tesla down the highway. Current battery capacity wouldn't last any time at all -- I'd guess minutes before needing a recharge. Certainly not anywhere long enough to be practical.

Sorry, but fossil fuels will be around for many years to come.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Every single one of us right now is using fossil fuels to power the many servers all over the world to use the internet. That takes an extraordinary amount of power. Most people plug in their smartphones everyday which also uses fossil fuels. We also just discovered last week during the Polar Vortex that electric car batteries dont work when its that cold. They lost 50% of there storage and people got stranded.

https://news.yahoo.com/electric-cars-really-hate-winter-110724255.html
 
Redress said:
I slightly misremembered the phrase, it was "feasible", not "practical":



Maybe you should read the document. It would help you tremendously, and you would look a lot less silly.
Click to expand...

Everyone is so tired of your lies.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
*sigh*

Not even a token attempt to look this up for yourself huh?



hemp fuel | hemp biodiesel | hemp ethanol- Hemp

I'm really ****ing tired of providing basic knowledge to people that have access to google...

At this point, you people are literally arguing against market forces. When all we want to do is speed up what the markets are already doing. To hasten it so it's less painful. But, hey you keep the Middle East in business as long as you can...
Click to expand...

I did an exercise one time to help me to understand the feasibility of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline and diesel.

It was actually pretty simple. One acre of land can grow enough corn to produce 328 gallons of ethanol. In 2017 the United States consumed 143 billion gallons of fuel. If you do some quick math, that comes to 436 million ACRES of cornfield -or- 681,212 square miles. If you look at a map of the United States, 681,212 square miles would be equal to a rectangle spanning from eastern Montana, east to central Wisconsin, south to New Orleans, west to El Paso Texas, and then north back to eastern Montana.

I understand that this exercise leaves out a lot of things like variations in growth rate due to climate, the extra fuel consumption needed to harvest and process all of this corn, and so on. It does give a person perspective, though. Even if hemp is 3X as efficient as corn, it could still never be more than a small supplement to what we actually need.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I did an exercise one time to help me to understand the feasibility of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline and diesel.

It was actually pretty simple. One acre of land can grow enough corn to produce 328 gallons of ethanol. In 2017 the United States consumed 143 billion gallons of fuel. If you do some quick math, that comes to 436 million ACRES of cornfield -or- 681,212 square miles. If you look at a map of the United States, 681,212 square miles would be equal to a rectangle spanning from eastern Montana, east to central Wisconsin, south to New Orleans, west to El Paso Texas, and then north back to eastern Montana.

I understand that this exercise leaves out a lot of things like variations in growth rate due to climate, the extra fuel consumption needed to harvest and process all of this corn, and so on. It does give a person perspective, though. Even if hemp is 3X as efficient as corn, it could still never be more than a small supplement to what we actually need.
Click to expand...

Jack, google why it's bad to use corn for ethanol, google ethanol from sugar beats, google ethanol vs hemp bio fuel. I'm really not up for giving a huge lesson on this only to have someone go, nuh uh...

Bc this started out talking about trains, and now we've gone so far down the energy production line of renewables you want to talk about how much ethanol it takes to grow the worst crop for ehtanol in the least efficient way to grow it.

Let me clue you into a whole new system. Hydroponic factories that grow sugar beats using solar, wind, dam or whatever won't take any ethanol to produce ethanol. You can use a smaller plot of land to grow much much much much more.

I'm done with the lessons.
 
Really? I don’t really think that princess Aoc has been to New Mexico and then you tell me how would that work
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Jack, google why it's bad to use corn for ethanol, google ethanol from sugar beats, google ethanol vs hemp bio fuel. I'm really not up for giving a huge lesson on this only to have someone go, nuh uh...

Bc this started out talking about trains, and now we've gone so far down the energy production line of renewables you want to talk about how much ethanol it takes to grow the worst crop for ehtanol in the least efficient way to grow it.

Let me clue you into a whole new system. Hydroponic factories that grow sugar beats using solar, wind, dam or whatever won't take any ethanol to produce ethanol. You can use a smaller plot of land to grow much much much much more.

I'm done with the lessons.
Click to expand...
I think you're best bet would be to start doing some actual thinking and give up the smarmy/snarky routine.

We could not possibly build enough "hydroponic factories" to grow enough beats, hemp, or whatever else you think could produce fuel, to meet our current demand for fuel. Rather than waste time and resources pursuing a dead end, we would be better served pursuing something else.(maybe hydrogen?)
 
Nickyjo said:
I think it’s hyperbole, which if I remember well from the 8th grade, means “exaggeration to make a point.” Do you think she was serious about abolishing farting as well?

I have the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge which I would be willing to part with if you are interested.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that AOC's ideas are terrifying if she were serious?
 
Redress said:
It means what it says, which is not what you claim it says. Why can you not critique her honestly?
Click to expand...

She honestly wants to eliminate fossil fuels. How do airplanes fly? Even gliders are pulled up in the air by another fossil fueled ............................ airplane. Are the passengers going to be required to pedal?
 
Redress said:
No, it does not mean that. You clearly have not read the document, and have no clue what it actually says beyond the spoon fed claims a few nutty right wing blogs have told you. Hint: it calls for research, and it uses the phrase "where practical".
Click to expand...

Who defines what "practical" means - the tree huggers?
 
She is annoying
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You conveniently leave out the parts that make "The New Green Deal" laughable.

I don't think any reasonable person would deny that clean, renewable energy is something that we should be pursuing. What is not reasonable, though, is USING that goal as a justification for the pursuit of some pie in the sky, socialist utopian wet dream. This is exactly what "The New Green Deal" is. A socialist utopian wet dream.

What people like you and AOC fail to understand is that ideas like clean renewable energy are ideas that the majority of this country would actually get behind. If you'd leave it as a stand alone, singular objective, we might actually make some real progress but when you present it as only PART of this socialist utopian wish list you make yourselves look like raving lunatics.
Click to expand...

That was my biggest take from the Green New Deal. It is actually two things rolled into one. One is about environmental concerns - renewable energy and getting us out of fossil fuels. The second is a liberal Utopian society, which is completely separate from environmental issues. Rolling them into one big Green New Deal only shows how completely and utterly whacko these people have become. It's bad when Nancy Pelosi laughs at them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom